Thursday, January 26, 2012

Gingrich's shady Alinsky campaign

I suspect Saul Alinsky would nod with grudging admiration at the way GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich repeatedly injects his name into speeches and interviews.

"The centerpiece of this campaign is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky," for example. Or "Saul Alinsky radicalism is at the heart of (President Barack) Obama."

From the way Gingrich invokes the boogeyman Alinsky, you'd think he was still alive — not dead for nearly 40 years — and about to leap from the shadows brandishing a Molotov cocktail to hurl at a U.S. flag.

But Alinsky, the famed community organizer who lived most of his life in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, was not an advocate of violence. He was not a socialist, Marxist or communist.

He identified as a radical, yes. But his radicalism took the form of a deep commitment to democracy — to helping the downtrodden find and use their political voice — and so was as fundamentally exceptional and American as the radicalism of the Founders.

"The two words that sum him up are 'populist' and 'pragmatist,'" said biographer Sanford D. Horwitt, author of "Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy." "He didn't care for labels. He wanted to help people get things done."

Even if it meant using a little creative disinformation from time to time.

One of the more famous stories about Alinsky involves a proposed "fart-in" protest.

It seems that in the mid-1960s, African-American leaders in Rochester, N.Y., asked Alinsky for help in organizing their community and securing concessions from the town's leading employer, Eastman-Kodak.

Alinsky floated the idea that to draw attention to the cause, protesters would buy up 100 seats to a Rochester Philharmonic concert and then partake of a pre-show banquet "consisting of nothing but huge portions of baked beans," as he told Playboy magazine in a lengthy interview just before his death.

"Can you imagine the inevitable consequences within the symphony hall?" he said. "Demonstrations, confrontations and picketings they'd learned to cope with, but never in their wildest dreams could (the city fathers) envision a flatulent blitzkrieg on their sacred symphony orchestra. It would throw them into complete disarray."

The fart-in never got past the rumor stage. But the fact that it was plausible — that Alinsky had by then acquired a reputation as someone who would employ just about any attention-getting technique he could think of to advance his causes — rattled the Rochester establishment.

Ultimately, Alinsky was able to extract concessions from Kodak using a less odoriferous tactic — acquiring thousands of investors' proxy votes and threatening to use them to disrupt a stockholders' meeting — but the legend lives on.

"People don't get opportunity or freedom or equality or dignity as an act of charity; they have to fight for it, force it out of the establishment," Alinsky told Playboy. "This liberal cliche about reconciliation of opposing forces is a load of crap. Reconciliation means just one thing: When one side gets enough power, then the other side gets reconciled to it."

His goal was always to work within the system, not to destroy it, Horwitt said. His technique was to break down apathy and hopelessness, create a belief in the possibility of change and focus popular energy. If that sounds familiar, maybe it's because tea party activists and others on the right have embraced the technique, even crediting Alinsky, in recent years.

Alinsky was fine with using many varieties of unorthodox means with the downtrodden "to unsettle them, to make them start asking questions, to teach them to stop talking and start acting," Horwitt said.

"My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions," Alinsky said, basically restating the animating principle of democracy itself.

"The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: 'For the general welfare … '"

Is Gingrich the historian really frightened of the influence of a man who devoted his life to helping poor folks find their political voice?

I doubt it. To me, this looks like the ultimate cynical tribute to Alinsky — the dark, repetitive intonation of a name that sounds vaguely foreign and Jewish in order to rile folks up with yet another gaseous myth.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

--I disagree with most of what you say here but I can accept all but the last paragraph. The charge that Gingrich is somehow being anti-Semitic by bringing up the name Alinsky is uncalled for and unsupported. If you are going to accuse Newt of being an anti-Semite, you need more evidence.

Alinsky was a well-known public figure in Chicago and an attack on him cannot automatically be presumed to be anti-Semitic any more than every attack on Rahm Emanuel can be presumed to be anti-Semitic.

ZORN REPLY -- He's not even all that well known in Chicago, Jimmy. It's been 40 years. He's certainly not well known in the rest of America, and if you think the endless invocations of the name "Saul Alinsky" are meant to conjure up an accurate and specific image about a particular man, we can agree to disagree.
I know a dog whistle when I hear one.

EZ,
Unfortunately, I don't think he's using "Saul Alinsky" as a dog whistle. He's using it as a vuvuzela. He IS appealing to the fear of the "other" and using any trick he can.

The voters who he is appealing to don't remember what happened 4 years ago much less 40+ years ago. They have a hard time following what town the Kardashians are taking and can't decide whether the Housewives are Real or Desperate.

This "dog whistle" stuff is such a cliche. Liberals have convinced themselves that, when certain phrases are invoked, they act as dog whistles to conservatives. Think about how silly and intellectually arrogant that is. How can you presume to know what other people hear?

Liberal to a conservative: "When Gingrich speaks of Alinsky, you hear a dog whistle that says 'Jew'"

Conservative to liberal: "No I don't.

Liberal to conservative: "Yes, you do. I know what you hear."

Conservative to liberal: "No you don't"

Liberal to conservative: "Uh, I'm a liberal. That gives me the ability to know what you hear better than you do."

The new right has been using the name Alinsky for a solid decade now. He's used just like Goldstein character is used by Orwell in 1984 and "conjured up boogymen" have been used to scare and control people that need to be kept ignorant of the ambitions of those that "protect" us. Don't know why the right is turned into mental mush at the very mention of those names that are supposed to scare them.

The name's not even obviously jewish. Ask 10 people on the street if the name "Alinsky" is Jewish or, better yet, what the ethnic/religious background of someone named Alinsky is. Maybe one out of the ten would say jewish with the other nine saying Polish, Russian or some Slavic nationality. Silly column from a noted Dem hack who, despite all the Dem corruption and failed policies in this State, still pulled the lever for Blago twice and will continue to vote D. Does the dog whistle hear what Obama said at that Khalidi dinner? My guess is that there was more jew hatred in Obama's church than exists in South Carolina, the State that elected a Republican ethnic minority to the Governor's office. By the way, EZ, did you vote for Blago twice?

I won't engage in speculation about what Newt and the Republicans intend by mentioning Saul Alinsky in a derogatory way in reference to Obama. Whenever I hear his name it is usually in reference to Obama's community organizing and/or Bill Ayers. I suppose for a certain segment of the population who can remember such things, "Alinsky", "community organizer" and "socialist" or "communist" would immediately conjure the specter of the "evil jew".

It is extremely hypocrytical of the Republican party to claim Alinsky's theories and practices are somehow un-American or anti-democratic. In Jack Abramoff's book he notes that many of tactics the College Republicans and the Republican party in general employed in the 80"s came directly from Alinsky. In fact, Dick Armey handed out Alinsky's book at training sessions and rallies.

Len, you would have to be blind, or a severe partisan, not to recognize that Jewish Democrats have as much to worry about with respect to entrenched anti-Semitism in their own ranks. Let's be fair. Overt anti-Semitism exists in leftist circles these days. All you have to do is go to your nearest left-wing rally against "Zionism" to see ghastly Jewish caricatures reminiscent of 1930's Germany. And certain members of the Occupy crowd weren't beneath embracing the age-old anti-Semitic lie of Jewish control of the world economy.

It's debatable whether Newt's comment is even implicitly anti-Semitic. But let's say that is was. OK - - it's horrible. But I would love it if, just once, Jewish Democrats could admit that, in their ranks, there are numerous examples of actual, overt, and blatant anti-Semitism. Before bashing Republicans on this issue, and Jewish Republicans in particular, clean up your own house.

As a conservative, I'd like to thank you for letting me know I'm supposed to be scared of Saul Alinsky because he is Jewish. I had no idea, I guess I didn't recognize "Alinsky" as a Jewish last name, but thank you for enlightening me.

ZORN REPLY -- Yes and I'm sure you didn't recognize "Saul" either. And you don't get what all the fuss was about when REpublicans spoke endlessly in 2008 about "Barack HUSSEIN Obama."
Tsk.
I'm still chuckling over the comment above that this isn't a dog whistle, it's a vuvuzela.

Pawel G is correct. At least Gingrich is indirectly honest about the people to whom he's trying to appeal . The half-wits who buy into this don't even know who the hell he's talking about. The vast majority of the American politically-active public couldn't give you one accurate fact about Saul Alinsky without a visit to Wikipedia. But it's win-win for Newt: he gets to sound like a erudite historian and at the same time throw around a Jewish name to stand for the enemy within.

EZ keeps a book on jewish last names. Liberals have to keep their ethnic minorities straight so that they can spread the racial spoils around. How is it that the swamp rats of Louisiana elected an Indian American (R) while the toothless hillbillies of South Carolina elected another Indian American (R)? Did they miss all of Eric's silent dog whistles or did they think Haley just had a tan from moonshining up in the hollers?

Paradoxically and albeit rather clumsily, Gingrich is trying to employ Rules For Radicals tactics by associating Obama with Saul Alinsky. That's a no-no because those demonizing tactics are considered sacred to and reserved for rabble rousers including Obama.

Find a scapegoat.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it" is an Alinsky mantra.
Obama learned and used his mob scapegoating lessons well targeting the "rich". It's what Obama taught his ACORN followers in his Community Agitator classes in Chicago. It's a great prescription for whipping up mobs...by race, gender, religion, ethnicity...Wall Street Occupiers...pick a category.
Lenin did a number on the Russian Kulaks who owned a couple of cows.
And incredulously, Janet Napolitano, Obama's Homeland security secretary in a jaw dropping rant, targeted returning Iraq war vets as potential terrorists.

Scapegoating is very simple, and very malevolent. It is the defining feature of human destructiveness. All the truly irrational actions in human history involve displaced rage. Pathological societies in the world are always torn by a search for new scapegoats.

Scapegoating is a really effective manipulation for mobs that have long ago decided that their real enemy is... anybody. Because that overwhelming feeling of rising rage matters much more than whoever is the victim of the moment. That overwhelming tension is intolerable and seeks an outlet.

Dan, the difference between Newt Gingrich and the decades-old examples you cite of black and Klan-type anti-Semitism and a small minority of stupid Occupy protesters, is that Gingrich is (or was) a front-running candidate for for the U.S. presidency who is using this tactic as campaign propaganda in an election year.

So now the dog whistle focuses on the first name, not the last, because EZ knows no one would recognize the Alinsky last name as jewish. Would calling someone by their first name of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also set off Eric's dog whistles? Too bad Alinksy's parents didn't name him Moishe Rubinstein-Eric's argument would still be stupid but at least the name would fit the stupid argument.

It's pretty odd to see a Republican tagged by a Democrat for antisemitism. Newt's lifeline benefactor is a devout Jew who is a fanatical supporter of Israel. As folks have pointed out there is a decided Rev Wright strain of the Democratic party that is nearly overtly anti-Semitic and is far too tolerated by the mainstream party. And of course if ever there was a dog-whistle word for Jew, it is the one often used by those on the left: neocon. Whipping out the racist/bigot play to tar a conservative would no doubt be approved by Alinsky, though. It might be low, but it still works.

The charge that Gingrich's reference to Alinsky is even remotely anti-Semitic is so ridiculous that it's barely worth me writing this comment. If you've watched any of the debates or listened to any of the speeches, Newt, Mitt, and Santorum repeat over-and-over again how they want the United States to stand with Israel against Israel's enemies. Only Ron Paul is not falling all over himself to say nice things about Israel or its Jewish population. Whether you agree with Newt's pro-Israel policy or not, how do you square that with the suggestion that he is being anti-Semitic by referencing a radical with a Jewish last name? In fact, I think it was Newt who said that he wants there to be no room between the foreign policies of the U.S. and Israel. I think that these guys are pandering to the Jewish vote in Florida too much, not too little, and I think the suggestion that they would even risk offending Jews in Florida is absurd.

Gingrich is using the Alinsky reference because the guy was a radical, community organizer from Hyde Park. Moreover, I've not heard Gingrich denigrate Alinsky's character or tactics - he's merely describing Alinsky's politics, accurately in my opinion. He's fair game just like the fellow in the White House. Finally, I don't see anyone pointing out that Gingrich cites another Jewish person at least as often (go ahead and check me on that) and speaks about him reverentially - that would be Benjamin Netanyahu.

ZORN REPLY -- I believe it's a mistake to conflate conservative support for and interest in Israel with particular esteem or feelings for Jews or the Jewish faith.
First, of course, it is as close to a western-style democracy as exists in the middle east and is a bulwark for our political interests in the region.
Second there is the connection that Christians feel with the land.
Here is a passage from Christianity Today:

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, gave his entire speech on Israel, reading from Genesis where God promised to bless those that bless Israel. Land seemed to imply that Obama's recent statements put America at risk of not being blessed by God, possibly even cursed.

over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return....According to the prophetic texts, partitioning is not in Israel's future, even if the creation of a Palestinian state is the best chance for peace in the region. Peace is nowhere prophesied for the Middle East, until Jesus comes and brings it himself. The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second coming. Anyone who pushes for peace in such a manner is ignoring or defying God's plan for the end of the age.

---
This is not to suggest that such people are perforce anti-semites, but to suggest that much of this common-cause interest in Israel is independent of that sort of sentiment either way, just as those who are less enthusiastic about Israel may have very high esteem for Jews (and may be Jewish themselves).

I think this is not only non-obvious, it is by no means necessarily an accurate description of what's going on. "-sky/ski" could just as well belong to a Pole or a Russian or various other groups. What Gingrich is doing is trying to emulate the Ayers thing that seemed to work so well. Whether he is doing more than that or not, there isn't much way to say. Remember, that one gained traction despite having nothing at all to do with race. It was about associating Ayers with terrorists; this one is about communists.

Nevermind that the whole line of attack by association is dubious and that Alinsky wasn't a communist, it doesn't need to be realistic or accurate to work. It's a simple trick. Don't just attack the other guy, force him into a position where he has to spend his campaign energy defending or dissociating himself from a third party who has nothing to do with his suitability for office, but through whom he is now tarnished. Alinksy fits the bill perfectly regardless of his last name, because he is obscure enough to be described any way Gingrich likes without a pre-existing popular image to counter, yet real enough and radical enough that Gingrich can both play the Ayers game and feed his "I'm a professor of history" image.

This game we regularly see of, "You are racist." "No I'm not." "But you are, because I know you are." It doesn't help, it only sets people like you up for falling into the trap of making accusations for which you can't offer any proof beyond your own personal interpretation of things. Especially in a case like this, where there are alternative interpretations that would, just as well as the one you offer, perfectly fit the visible facts and incentives, this undermines your voice and helps the other side paint you as...well, as the same sort of debater who insists that "income inequality" is really a code phrase used by people for "envy-based class warfare."

Kip - -I'm not excusing Gingrich at all, assuming that he's undertaking a premeditated plan to use anti-Semitism to get elected, and I think it's a real stretch to believe that it is. It is, rather, a pretty pathetic attempt to link Obama to "radical" elements of the Democratic party, which has been a concern and theme on the right for several years now -- and for whom Alinsky is better known than Democrats might realize. And, in any event, soon Newt will be relegated to a footnote (hopefully). The point of my post was why the left has traditionally blamed the right for tolerating and harboring secret anti-Semitic attitudes when, staring us right in the face, it is members of the Democratic party who have overtly exhibited that attitude. And why every left-wing protest (MoveOn, Occupy, etc.) has anti-Semitic themes that, if not officially part of those movements, really seem to enjoy a disturbingly high level of tolerance among the left. These are real problems in the Democratic party, Kip, as I see them, and it just seems to me that they remain, and have remained for a long time, unaddressed.

Just a few more comments, and I'm done. (1) Apparently, I gave "decades-old" examples of anti-Semitic comments. Not sure how old an example has to be to lose its taint. Jeremiah Wright --- our President's spiritual guide and mentor for 20 years --- just several years ago bashed "them Jews" as the cause of Obama's troubles in the Middle East (he later said he only meant to say "Zionists", ahem). As for the rest, they all enjoy (or enjoyed, in Byrd's case) respect in the highest levels of Democratic party circles. Al Sharpton, who caused a riot premised on anti-Jewish propaganda, is a commentator on MSNBC. Jesse Jackson -- respected Democratic Party elder statesman. Byrd - - rose to the highest level of Democratic politics. All forgiven, all excused, I guess. (2) Apparently, I give examples only of "black and Klan-type anti-Semitism". Well, I'm relieved it's only THAT kind of anti-Semitism, as opposed to whatever kind Gingrich is supposedly preaching. (3) The Republican party is not without this taint - - and I would be foolish to say that it was. I am just trying to demonstrate (and I think I have) that anti-Semitism exists on BOTH sides of the aisle, and that before casting aspersions against the Republican party as a whole, Democrats should take some time to look inward and ask why certain members of their own party are held in such high esteem, or are given a pass on this question, or are, at the very least, tolerated within their ranks.

Dan, don't waste your breath. Libs go so deaf from hearing dog whistles that they can't seem to see or hear the actual jew haters in their midst. Can a lib explain how an Indian American woman got elected in South Carolina with all the dog whistles going off? Are they honorary white in the Eric Zorn Book of Racial Inequities Recognized by Lefties?

I actually didn't, I normally equate Saul with Paul the Apostle's original name. Not to mention, you don't have to look too far to find a devout Christian with a Hebrew (Old Testament) name.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives and Republicans just aren't that concerned about Jews like liberals imagine them to be. Heck, they support Israel almost unconditionally, in stark contrast to what the far left does. But some liberals LOVE to find ridiculous, non-existent examples of racism and anti-Semitism by the right.

Incidentally enough, anti-Semitism (and fear of "Jewish bankers") nowadays comes mainly from a few select groups (Muslims, far left extremists and Europeans). Yes, you will still find your backwater, Southern conservative worried about them, but it just doesn't exist like it once did.

"Eric, how do you square that statement when Gingrich's past history of support for Israel and the Jewish people is much stronger than the current president."

Oh at least be honest. Gingrich (and the entire right for that matter) no more support the Jewish people than he supports the Muslim people. The right supports Israel because of its importance in their End Times theology, and that's the crowd the Republicans have to pander to.

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, if you'll scroll back up to my reply to GregJ you'll see links to support that claim.
Not to say there isn't a significan intersection in the "support for Israel" "affection for the Jewish people and their faith" Venn diagram, but it is far from a perfect overlap.

People who lap up the Saul Alinsky references made by Gingrich are the same people who watched Glenn Beck spend hours demonizing Obama by making ridiculous inferences between Alinsky, Obama and radical socialism. They're also the same people who invested in the birther movement and then went on to the Tea Party.

The problem for Gingrich (and Romney) is that the middle few percent who actually decide elections don't care about that stuff. They didn't buy the attempts to taint Obama with references to "pallin' around with terrorists" and "God-d**m America". They don't see a socialist or worse - they see a pretty moderate guy in the White House right now. Gingrich and Romney have to appeal to the far-right to get nominated and then turn around and run back to the center to get elected. The Alinsky references may help get the wing-nut vote, but they will alienate the middle come November.

ZORN REPLY (excerpts) -- I believe it's a mistake to conflate conservative support for and interest in Israel with particular esteem or feelings for Jews or the Jewish faith. ...

This is not to suggest that such people are perforce anti-semites, but to suggest that much of this common-cause interest in Israel is independent of that sort of sentiment either way, just as those who are less enthusiastic about Israel may have very high esteem for Jews (and may be Jewish themselves).

GREG J REPLY -- I don't disagree with anything that you wrote but I don't think anything you wrote detracts from the point I was making. Newt and others view the Jewish vote in Florida as up for grabs because of real or perceived missteps that Obama has made regarding Israel and middle eastern foreign policy. Because of that, it doesn't really matter why Newt thinks it's effective to appeal to Jewish voters but rather that he's reaching out at all. His efforts to reach out indicate that he's serious about courting the vote, in which case it would be political malpractice to single out another American Jew because he represents "the other" or what have you.

Newt is counting on Jewish voters to be smart enough, and old enough, to know what he's doing. How many other (in)famous Hyde Park community organizers can you come up with whose name would resonate with anyone? I can't think of any and while I didn't know a ton about Alinsky, I got the reference right away. Again, if Newt didn't make a lot of references to Netanyahu and to being a friend to Israel, the argument that he's doing anything untoward might have more legs. As it stands, this seems akin to someone arguing that he would never appoint a radical Justice like Thurgood Marshall while later offering praise for Clarence Thomas. You could fairly accuse the candidate of going out of his way to reference two black people but the worst you could accuse him of is trying to pander to the portion of the black community who might consider voting for him.

ZORN REPLY -- Tell me honestly, given that you "got the reference," what did you think it meant when you heard it? What did you think Alinsky had said and/or done that would be offensive to Newt, to your values, to the law? Did you think he was an avowed socialist? An instigator of violence?
See, if a well educated Chicagoan like you only vaguely "gets the reference," what could it possibly mean to the low-information voters all across our great nation?
You honestly think if his name had been Steve Armstrong we would have heard all these references to "Steve Armstrong radicalism"?
If so, I suggest you're naive.

"I suggest you're naive"? Newt says a name that is not what people would traditionally consider Jewish and EZ feigns hearing anti-semitic dog whistles because those are the new Journolist talking points that have been handed out. It's hardly a coincidence that the left's exquisitely sensitive ears have picked up the same talking point. I suggest malice.

Well, EZ, in the last election it was Bill Ayers. What do bigoted dogs hear when that mostly unknown name is enunciated.

ZORN REPLY -- At least with Ayers there was a back story, very old though it was and however tangential his connection to Obama was, of a guy who was a violent revolutionary in the 1960s. You could actually point to specific things and say "what he said and did here was terrible."
What do you have with "Saul Alinsky"? Even hopscotching through his books looking for inflammatory stuff you come up awfully dry.
He was for helping poor people mobilize politically to advance their cause.

Shame on you! He's not my favorite, but to suggest Gingrich's use of relating Obama and Alinsky to some veiled ethnic or racist motive makes you the racialist Sir.

How you managed to write an essay about Alinsky without mentioning his book. "Rules for Radicals", is also astounding. And, all you need do is Google Alinsky where the Obama connection is often conflated with radical socialism. Gingrich requires no defence in stating the obvious.

Anti-poor? That makes sense-Obama is so pro-poor that he is vastly expanding their ranks. Hey, Pawel, did you hear that the economy is improving: 3% growth in 2010 to 1.7% in 2011. What, that's not improvement? Must be racist.

--While I kind of see EZ's point in general, in this case I just don't see that as an impetus for Gingrich to waste his breath. I am guessing - but please correct me if I am wrong as I have no references or statistics - that white Southern Anti-Semites are also racists and that they are more racist than they are Anti-Semites for obvious historical reasons. So what would be the point of veiled attempts to associate Obama with a [maybe] Jewish name, when even the most brain dead racist by now must know that Obama has considerable African heritage? If Obama's dark skin wasn't enough to stir up the racists, I would think mentioning the [Jewish] names of his former chief of staff, his campaign manager, his Treasury Secretary, his appointee to the Supreme Court, etc. would have done the trick a lot more effectively.

ZORN REPLY -- Tell me honestly, given that you "got the reference," what did you think it meant when you heard it? What did you think Alinsky had said and/or done that would be offensive to Newt, to your values, to the law? Did you think he was an avowed socialist? An instigator of violence?
See, if a well educated Chicagoan like you only vaguely "gets the reference," what could it possibly mean to the low-information voters all across our great nation?
You honestly think if his name had been Steve Armstrong we would have heard all these references to "Steve Armstrong radicalism"?
If so, I suggest you're naive.

GREG J REPLY -- I'll give you my 100% honest take when I heard the reference and let you infer what you want from there. When I first heard it, I thought "Alinsky, ... let's see, I think he was some radical rabble-rouser from my dad's era and I think he had a Chicago connection, ... Newt's probably mentioning him to show off his historical knowledge and making some play for older voters who know more about him than I do." Then I didn't give it a second thought until you (Eric) brought it up in this forum.

@ Ed : 30 years of sociopathic ideology being applied by the right - that includes Obama ,of course he's just not the racist, anti poor, rabid, reactionary, proto-fascist right that is the Republicon party - have indeed reduced, and continue to drive millions into poverty no matter what the "numbers" for the wealthiest look like (and all the numbers that are quoted regularly have nothing to do with most of us, but are indicators for the wealthiest amongst us, correct?). Indeed.

Wow, Gene Salamon goes a bit overboard, Pawel G follows, just on the other side. Both are demonstrating unfortunate human propensity for demonizing others. There are plenty of true devils in the world, I don't think Zorn is one of them, nor I would think you guys. So how about a bit more proportionate and considered posts?

Gene Salamon - so I take it you've read "Rules for Radicals"? Can you tell me which part in particular leaped out at you? What exactly is it that's so odious about the book? What do you think Obama might have gotten out of it that's so wrong or, worse, unAmerican?

Many people -- EZ included -- need to take a deep breath. Eric you are way over the top. Alinsky is a shorthand for a leftist radical. Oooh, Scary Obama.
That is all Gingrich means. There are no subtle (or not subtle) racist references here. No dog whisltes. Just your willingness to find racism wherever Obama is. You're looking for that stuff. Obama plays up the racial differences every chance he gets! "People who look different," people who are purple ... whatever" are part of his regular campaign schtick. Take a look. The Washington Post addressed this several days ago and said Alinsky was a staple of the 2008 election -- not this one, people!

[[In 2008, he resurfaced as the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College. The election of Barack Obama — who, like Alinsky, worked as a community organizer in Chicago — kept the Alinsky allusions alive. And now, nearly 40 years after the death of the populist forebear of 1960s campus activism, Newt Gingrich has revived him as a reliable line on the GOP presidential campaign trail.]]

Not everyone thinks it's negative: Sanford D. Horwitt, who wrote a biography of Alinsky, “Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and Legacy,” said Gingrich is “speaking to, first and foremost, tea party activists and leaders at the local level who know all about Saul Alinsky and think he is sinister and evil and the mastermind of Barack Obama’s rise to the White House. It’s a wonderful shorthand to a lot of people out there, more than you would think.”

Horwitt said that his “Saul Alinsky” Google alert had produced a constant stream of blog posts, television references and essays over the past four years. The vast majority of Alinsky references online, he said, attempt to characterize Obama as a secret minion of the man he never met. At the same time, some conservative leaders — such as Richard K. Armey, the former House majority leader who is now president of the conservative activist group Freedomworks — have admired the organizer’s tactics, if not his politics.]]

Why would it be wrong for conservatives to emulate Alinsky's tactics? After all, General Patton made no secret that he emulated Rommel's tactics. In the movie, after defeating Rommel in North Africa, Patton shouts, "I read your book, you magnificent bastard!"

No, no, all you right wingers have it wrong, Alinsky is just a totally unknown, flatulent prankster. Listen to Zorn, he knows. Sheldon Adelson, the multi-billionare, is giving Gingich millions of dollars because he is not nearly as smart as Zorn.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.